Bethel Strict Baptist Chapel

W i m b l e d o n

Click on this link for   →   The Greek Christian Fellowship

This site contains historical information on Bethel Strict Baptist Chapel, Wimbledon, LONDON

Articles of Faith

This Strict Baptist Christian Church "Bethel" Is Based Upon The Doctrines of Free & Sovereign Grace

1. God; Trinity & Unity

2. The Divinity & Perfect Humanity of The Lord Jesus Christ

3. The Divinity & Personality of God The Holy Spirit

4. The Fall of Man (Total Depravity)

5. Unconditional Election To Salvation

6. Particular Redemption As Opposed To Universal Salvation

7. Effectual Calling of the Elect Sinner By God The Holy Spirit

8 . Final Perseverance, Preservation, & Glorification of All the Elect Church of God in All Ages.

9. Justification of The Elect of God By The Atoning Work of Christ.

___________________________________________________

This Strict Baptist Christian Church observes

The Ordinances of Believers Baptism By

Immersion & Also The Ordinance of The Lord's Table

Which Is Administered To Members Of The 

Same Faith & Order Only. In A Word It Holds To 

Strict Communion. It Holds That Faith,

Repentance, & Baptism Are Necessary To Admission To The Table of The Lord.

Minutes of Meeting to officially form Zoar Chapel 

Conveyance and Trust Deed of Bethel Baptist Chapel (formerly known as Merton Rd Baptist Chapel which was previously known as Zoar Chapel)  Pages 3 & 4 shown

Trust Deed and Duties of Trustees

 Is your church being true to its original articles of faith?  Do the current pastor and members of the church know its history? Do they respect their predecessors’ sacrifice of time and money in establishing the church and their struggle to ensure its survival and spiritual prosperity?

Churches should from time to time examine their Trust Deed. A Trust Deed is a document that relates to the original foundation of the church and sets out the reasons why the church was first set up. It is not always readily available and some, which are over 100 years old, are handwritten on parchment and very difficult to read. They can  run to several sheets, each measuring about 3 feet by 2 feet.

A deed is a written and signed document which sets out the things that have to be done or recognitions of the parties towards a certain object. Under older common law, a deed had to be sealed; that is, accompanied not only by a signature but also with an impression on wax onto the document. The word “deed” is also most commonly used in the context of real estate because these transactions must usually be signed and in writing.

  A typical Trust Deed written about one hundred years ago of a “Strict and Particular” Baptist Church would be worded as follows: Clause 1 “The doctrines preached or otherwise set forth by all Ministers or other persons officiating in the services or giving any religious instruction upon the Trust Property shall be founded upon the sole authority of the Holy Scriptures and that interpretation of them which is held by the aforesaid denomination called Particular or Calvinistic Baptists and which is usually called Evangelical as distinguished from Rationalistic or Unitarian views on the one hand and from Sacerdotal or Romanist views on the other hand.” Part of another clause states, “Every such permanent Minister shall be a Member of the Denomination of Calvinistic or Particular Baptists holding to the Doctrines referred to in Clause1 and shall maintain and practise the Ordinance of Believer’s Baptism by immersion …”

A trustee is a person who holds property rights for the benefit of another through the legal mechanism of the trust. A trustee usually has full management and administration rights over the property but these rights must always be exercised to the full advantage of the beneficiary. All profits from the property go to the beneficiary although the trustee is entitled to reimbursement for administrative costs. There is no legal impediment for a trustee to also be a beneficiary of the same property.

The following information is taken from The Baptist Corporation Limited Guidelines B.1 (04/2005) Church Trusts, Model Trusts and Property Trustees:

 "Most churches have a building or other premises as their place of worship from which they reach out in mission to their community. If the question is asked, ‘Who owns the church building?’ the answer will probably be that the church does. In many ways that is true but there are legal implications of property ownership which need to be considered in more detail. Legally, the ownership of the church premises (what lawyers call the title) will be in the name of trustees. The trustees may be private individuals who are, or were, connected with the church. More usually the trustees will be a Baptist Trust Corporation, such as the Baptist Union Corporation. The trustees ‘hold’ the property for the church. The purposes for which the property is held are in a legal document and are called ‘trusts’.

  TRUSTEES

The earliest ownership of Baptist chapels and meeting houses – or plots of land for building them – would have occurred soon after the first Baptist churches were founded in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It would not have been possible for a church to own land or buildings so trustees would have been appointed. These would have been men – never women in those days – of standing in the church or, perhaps, in a neighbouring church. The number of trustees varied but there were usually between nine and twelve. It was important for the trustees, and the church, to be clear about the conditions – or trusts – which applied to their ownership.

  CHURCH TRUSTS

Often these trusts would be set out in the legal document which passed ownership of the premises

to the trustees or in a separate trust deed. We call these the foundation trusts. If a church has occupied a chapel, or other premises, for many years the trusts which apply to the church will often still be set out in the document prepared at the time of the original purchase. The earliest foundation trusts were quite short, simply stating that the premises were to be used ‘as a place of worship for a congregation of Protestant Dissenters called Baptists’ or something similar. As Baptist life developed so the foundation trusts became more detailed containing things such as:

�� A doctrinal statement.

�� Rules for the appointment of a Minister

�� The qualifications for church membership.

�� Rules for the calling of Church Members’ Meetings.

�� The powers of the trustees to borrow money for the construction of buildings and their right to sell the premises, perhaps in exchange for other property.

�� How new trustees were to be appointed – usually including how many there must be.

�� Instructions about what would happen if the church closed and who would benefit from the proceeds of sale if the premises were sold (this is known as the ultimate trust).

No standard form of trust was used but because of the traditional interdependency of Baptists marked similarities can easily be identified in many trust deeds. Where the church has later sold the original chapel and purchased other premises the same trusts will normally apply because money from the disposal of one site has been used to purchase a new site.

  FOUNDATION TRUST DEEDS

Foundation Trust Deeds make fascinating reading but they are not merely a historical curiosity. The diaconate, (Church leaders) as Managing Trustees, ought to know what they contain because they often still apply to church life today."

There were and still are practical difficulties in churches appointing and keeping trustees especially for those with few members. For this reason corporations were set up to act as trustees.

In order to honour and respect the original Trust Deeds, the pastor, elders, deacons and members of the church along with the trustees ought to periodically monitor the situation and in particular take seriously any allegations made against a church concerning a breach of the Trust Deed. It is the duty of the trustees to investigate and take any necessary action to uphold the Trust Deed.

If it is found that pastors and church officers have broken the Trust Deed they ought to resign or  be dismissed and replaced with persons who would be willing to adhere to the legal document. Alternatively, the building could be sold, perhaps to the occupiers, who may then honourably run the church how they like and set up a new Trust Deed that will reflect their true position.

It is unfortunate that in recent years, pastors and missionaries who are supported financially from overseas, have come to the UK and taken advantage of small struggling churches. Faced with a choice of survival or death of a church, a few remaining and perhaps elderly members are too hasty to appoint a pastor whose doctrinal position is not the same as theirs. Once the elderly members have died, the link with the past is broken.

These small churches are vulnerable to being taken over by well-financed missionaries from abroad. The description “independent” when applied to non-conformist churches is really an illusion if they are in reality dependent on external income in order to support a pastor? If this external income is coming from a source that is opposed to the original Trust Deed then there is bound to be conflict.

This is where the stronger like-minded churches, affiliations of churches such as the FIEC, Grace Baptists, Gospel Standard Baptists and organizations such as Bible Colleges, Trust Corporations and Missionary Societies which are sympathetic to the Trust Deed should help the weaker struggling churches. Therefore, there is an advantage in belonging to a fellowship of churches with the same articles of faith.  

Pastors and Secretaries of the Church  

(The following information was obtained from old Grace Baptist Directories and other sources. No information on Bethel appears after 1994 in the Directories)

 Pastor Crispin was the last British pastor of Bethel who understood and preached the "Doctrines of Grace" according to the true sense of the Trust Deed.

Mr Crispin's Induction at Bethel in 1970                                           Obituary of Pastor Crispin who died in 1974

Obituary of Pastor Parker who died in 1955

An honest deacon, Mr Royall, resigned in Feb 1956 because he no longer believed that Christ died only for the elect as required by the Trust Deed and Articles of Faith 

My Dear Bro Mayo & Sisters beloved in Christ Jesus,

Arising out of matters lately heard amongst you, I feel that it is now laid upon me to place before the church a brief confession of my changed doctrinal position with regard to some of the more important aspects of the sacred scriptures of truth.

As a result of a most careful investigation of these subjects, in humble and prayerful dependence upon the deeper teaching of the Spirit of God, I find myself no longer able to give assent of heart and mind to that view of the Scriptures which limits the scope of the saving work and power of the Lord Jesus Christ to the church only, that body of elect and gathered out believers who partake of a present salvation by grace through faith.

Whilst maintaining that none can enjoy this present salvation in this administration of grace, except by faith in the Saviour's finished work at Calvary, I believe that He will, as the judge of of mankind, and through the corrective process of judgement, ultimately accomplish the declared purpose of God to reconcile all things unto Himself, both things in Heaven and things on earth. Col 1.20 that He will ultimately deliver the whole creation from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God, Rom 8.21, and that He will ultimately deliver up to the Father a restored and worshiping creation, subject at His feet in love, praise and adoration, that God may be all in all, 1 Cor15.28.

In this dual aspect of the saving power of He whom the scriptures set forth as the Saviour of the World, I find conflict between the teaching of the church that He is the Saviour of the elect, and the express revelation of the scriptures that He is also the Saviour of all men. 1 Tim 4.10

I also believe these truths to be clearly taught and affirmed in the epistles of the apostle Paul, and are set there for the obedience of our faith. A long and patient study of these things in the original tongue only confirms abundantly what is so clearly set forth in our authorised version.

It naturally follows from these things, beloved, that I am no longer to subscribe to the teaching of the church on the endlessness of God's judgements upon the wicked, or what has come to be accepted amongst us as the doctrine of Eternal Torment. It is apparent that if this theory is true then our glorious Lord cannot be the Saviour of all men, and the scripture is broken, and we must each reconcile this dilemma to the satisfaction of our conscience before God in the light of the deeper teaching of His Word.

I recognise that the doctrinal basis upon which the church is constituted reqiures that all members must give that assent to this dogma of Eternal Torment, which I can no longer do, and I realise that in conformity to its own rules, the church can now do no other than separate me from their communion. In my desire to spare the brethren needless pain in this matter I therefore hand back to the church both my office as deacon and my church membership.

I do so, beloved, in no spirit of pride or high mindedness, but with due meekness and solemnity of heart, sorrowing greatly that a matter of conscience should be the only matter of division between us.

I rejoice, however, that the everlasting bonds forged between us as joint members of the body of Christ can never be severed by a man-made creed.

Our unity in Christ is the work of God in His purpose of Grace, and what God has joined together no man can put asunder.

In that day when we shall all appear before Him when we shall know, even as we are known, these ordinances of man will seem things of moment in the light of His transcending love for us all.

I anticipate with joy the coming of that day when truths for which I must I must now suffer reproach will be gloriously and triumphantly vindicated.

That God, may abundantly bless you each individually, and cause His work at Bethel to grow and prosper, is the prayer now, as ever, of your 

Friend and Brother in Christ Jesus,

C W Royall

Reformed Evangelical Christians would not agree with Mr Royall's beliefs regarding eternal torment and universal salvation but would respect his honesty. He was honest enough to resign from church office knowing that he no longer adhered to the church's Trust Deed.

Merton Road Baptist Chapel officially changes its name to "Bethel Strict Baptist Chapel" in 1945

The building in "The Broadway" formerly known as "Merton Road" was owned by another Baptist Church. This church bought a piece of land nearby in Queen's Rd, upon which they were to build a new church. CH Spurgeon and his brother James helped Zoar Chapel, which was in Church Street (also known as Church Rd), Wimbledon Village, to buy the building in Merton Rd. in the area, then known as, New Wimbledon.

Zoar Chapel is re-formed as "Merton Rd Chapel" in 1891

Zoar Chapel was independent and autonomous. It consented to the doctrinal basis of the Gospel Standard and was therefore included in their list of churches until October 1936. There was no mention of Zoar / Merton Rd Chapel after 1937.

Personal details of the letter below have been deleted.

After 1937 Bethel was listed with the "Strict and Particular Baptists" later known as "Grace Baptists".

Obituary of Zoar Chapel's first Pastor who died in 1870

                Bethel is listed in the Grace Directory of Churches 1993

                Bethel is listed in the Grace Directory of Churches 1994

       Bethel is NOT listed in the Grace Directory of Churches 1995

   __________________________________________________________

Trinitarian Bible Society

Bethel Strict Baptist Church has a long history of supporting the Trinitarian Bible Society. Mr Denton worked for TBS. The Brown family that was connected with TBS also attended Bethel sometime in the past. Bethel has always used the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible. It is the most accurate English translation based on the best manuscripts i.e. Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic texts. However, it is not perfect and contains a few minor errors. 

In the April - June 2006, Issue No. 575, TBS Quarterly Record there is an article reviewing The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible by the Vice Chairman, Rev B G Felce. He wrote, "This text therefore does not have all the improvements made in the translation since 1611. ... The AV is not perfect. But a succession of editors have done their best to translate as exactly as possible the original Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments to give us the most accurate Bible available today. There is no point, except perhaps to aid scholars, in going back to the 1611 AV, which is less perfect than the AV which we already have. In God’s good providence we have the AV as the best and most accurate Bible for the church and the individual Christian." (p23-24) For full text of the review see QR575 - April to June 2006 

_________________________________________________________

Dangers of “KJV Onlyism” or KJV Perfectionism  

by P. Karageorgi

2 Kings 18:4   He [King Hezekiah] removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

The brazen serpent which Moses made was something good, which brought healing to the Israelites. However, after many years it became an idol. The misuse of something good can lead to error and sin.

The purpose of this article is to expose how extreme fundamentalism (mostly from America) has caused much harm amongst Christians by their erroneous views of the King James Version (KJV) of the Holy Scriptures.

What Is "KJV-Onlyism" ?

KJV Onlyism is not preferring the KJV because it is a superbly accurate translation based on the best manuscripts. It goes far beyond that. KJV Onlyism is the belief that only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the "true" Bible. Followers of this doctrine believe that the KJV is totally inerrant, totally infallible, and totally inspired - not even one word was translated except as guided by the Holy Spirit and that any deviation of the words, even minutely, constitutes changing God's word, as the text of the KJV is exactly how God intended the Scriptures to be. Some believe that the KJV is superior to the original languages of Greek and Hebrew.

This belief is held widely among “Independent Fundamentalist Baptists” in America. They now prefer to substitute the word “Bible-believing” for “fundamentalist” for obvious reasons. Perhaps over ten years ago, it was not an issue in the UK. However, there are more and more American missionaries in the UK who are promoting this belief and are using it as a test for a true Christian. It is even being included in “statements of faith”. It is a cause of division.

Consider the following statements (including spelling errors) taken from the website of Touchet Baptist Church in the USA.

“We Are King James 1611 Bible Only!

• We are KJB more than most folks can even imagine!
• The old Cambridge text is all we will look for in our purchases- all other KJB's are being tinkered with more and more.  We can't even trust 'church publishers' without our scrutiny of their possible changes - along with tracts and booklets and books - no one can be trusted anymore.
• We will not willingly listen, seek out or encourage any greek in our studies or sermons - or in or from the pulpit - NONE!
• No Hebrew is necessary, either!
• A concordance exists to help us find other verses, not any deeper meanings and proper useages.
• English Language of the King James Bible is the language God put His words into for the 7th and last writing.
• This KJ1611 Bible is alive with the Spirit of God and ALL the modern versions/perversions are alive with the spirit of the devil!
• The King James 1611 Bible is essential for one's salvation.
• The King James 1611 Bible is truly the sword of the Spirit and is essential for spiritual circumcision, without which Christ can not enter nor can we be made holy!
• The King James 1611 Bible is the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation!
• The King James 1611 Bible is the only inspired, inerrant, preserved word of God and IS the very words of God
• Fellowship with Jesus Christ is from proper prayer and reading and / or hearing of the King James Bible!
• Faith is essential for one to learn and grow from this Book.
• It will be the lack of hearing the King James Bible that will be the base of the famine in Amos 8:11-13
• When we read the phrase, "word of God," word of Jesus Christ, etc. those are referring to the King James 1611 Bible today.
• Any reference to the word "Scriptures' is a reference to the King James 1611 Bible today.
• If one wants any true doctrine, is willing to take reproof from God, is willing to be corrected and instructed in righteousness, the King James 1611 Bible must be the source!
• The King James 1611 Bible is higher than any physical or mental experience that one sees or feels.
• The King James 1611 Bible is to be magnified even above His name! Psalm 138:2
• When you read from a King James 1611 Bible, you are hearing from God Himself!
• John 1:1 is referring to the King James 1611 Bible today as well as Jesus Christ.
• If you could take the King James 1611 Bible and turn it into a flesh and blood person, you would have Jesus Christ.
• If you took the person of Jesus Christ and turn Him into words, you would have the King James 1611 Bible.
• Blood was shed for this book to be in our hands today - as was the blood of Christ so we could be in His hands today!
• I Thessalonians 2:12 is a reference to the King James 1611 Bible today and it will just what that verse promises - to effectually worketh also in you that believe!
• The King James 1611 Bible IS the Love of God.”

Many of these statements make the KJV an idol just as the brazen serpent of Ancient Israel. Extremism like this is an embarrassment to those who prefer to use the Authorised Version and a stumblingblock to those we wish to persuade to adopt the best English translation.

 RUCKMAN’S “ADVANCED REVELATION”

One KJV perfectionist, Peter Ruckman from Pensacola in Florida, believes that the KJV 1611 is more inspired than the original Greek and Hebrew. Note the following statements taken from his book The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence Pensacola Bible Press, 1970:

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (p. 118).

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (p. 126).

“A short handbook, such as this, will not permit an exhaustive account of the marvelous undesigned ‘coincidences’ which have slipped through the A.V. 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light, and advanced revelation beyond the investigation of the greatest Bible students 300 year later” (p. 127).

“A little English will clear up the obscurities in any Greek text” (p.147).

“If all you have is the ‘original Greek,’ you lose light” (p. 336).

One wonders where was God’s word before 1611 and what about the millions of people who do not speak English? Of course, each person needs a translation in his own language unless one is fluent in the original languages but why should the Chinese read a Bible translated from KJV 1611? Why not from the Geneva? Why not from Diodati’s Italian Bible? Why not from the 1637 Dutch Statenvertaling Bible? Better still, why not from the original Greek and Hebrew?

Many fundamentalists do not even understand the English of 1611. Many think that “strait” means “straight”, “quick” means “fast”, “peculiar” means “strange” and “conversation” means “speaking”. If we are to use the KJV let us not be ignorant of the language of our own Bible. What is needed is a good dictionary which defines words of that period. Otherwise, we can easily fall into the same trap as these obscurantists, who lead themselves and others to strange doctrines.

For example, according to the fundamentalists, divine inspiration led the KJV translators to use the term “Holy Ghost” in some places and “Holy Spirit” in others. This is despite the fact that the original Greek for “Holy Spirit” and “Holy Ghost” is in both cases Agion Pneu/ma [Agion Pneuma]. The translators of the KJV used the words “Ghost” and “Spirit” interchangeably. The former is Anglo-Saxon in origin and the latter is Latin. “Holy Ghost” is exactly the same as “Holy Spirit”. Not so, for the fundamentalists.

The following is from

http://www.kjbbn.net/is_the_holy_ghost_and_the_holy_same.htm

“Therefore, as the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit are the same person also, they do NOT mean the same!  The Holy Ghost in the body of the Son is said to be the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit… They,  "the Holy Ghost" and "the Spirit" do not have the same meaning! A "ghost" IN "a bodily shape" is said to be "a spirit". This is very important because you can not see a "ghost" without a body, or some other  physical manifestation! … To teach that  "the Holy Ghost" and "the Holy Spirit" have the same meaning, is to be in denial of the gospel!” …The Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit only mean the same to one who has reject the very words of God! Do, you have a King James Bible?”

In his article, Conies, Brass & Easter, Jack A. Moorman, writes the following:

“When prefixed with "Holy" and presented in a singular sense - generally apart from the Father and Son - the august title of the Third Person is "The Holy Ghost."

When presented in His relationships with Father and Son, the title "Spirit" is used. A survey of all the passages (see for example, The Englishman's Greek Concordance) shows this distinction to be maintained consistently in the Authorized Version. A possible exception is His baptizing work (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8) where "Holy Ghost" is used in connection with the Son. But as this is His primary and initial work on behalf of believers, we find the title used. From this it seems apparent that throughout much of English church history, "Holy Ghost" was considered a more elevated and exalted title than "Holy Spirit." It is certainly the more ancient of the two, as it goes back to the very roots of the English language, whereas "Holy Spirit" did not begin to be used until the 13th century (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology).

But could there not be a deeper and providential reason for the rendering "Holy Ghost"? With the word "ghost" death and its aftermath comes immediately to mind - albeit often in a superstitious sense. Yet death does mark the word! He is the Holy Ghost and could only come after a certain death had been accomplished (John 7:39; 14:26; 16:7); and bears witness to Him ‘that liveth, and was dead’ (Rev. 1:18; Acts 4:8, 10).”

Coincidentally, the Mormons also prefer to use the KJV and make a distinction between "Holy Ghost" and  "Holy Spirit". In Mormonism the "Holy Ghost" is a personage, or a god, but the "Holy Spirit" is an impersonal force. Of course, this very strange doctrine  was never held by the early Church, and is not held by mainstream Christianity today.

Another champion of KJV perfectionism is G A Riplinger who came to fame through her book, New Age Bible Versions. It would take a whole book to explain and evaluate her ideas, but here are a few quotes from her “scholarly” books:

“Palmer devoted an entire chapter in his book, The Five Points of Calvinism, to disprove the idea that ‘man still has the ability to ask God’s help for salvation.’ His ‘Five Points’ form a Satanic pentagram.” New Age Bible Versions p.231.
Is Riplinger unaware of the fact that many of the KJV translators were Calvinists or is she conveniently ignoring it?

In a Pentecostal paper titled The End Times and Victorious Living, January-February 1994, Mrs. Riplinger says, "EACH DISCOVERY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF EFFORT ON MY PART, BUT OF THE DIRECT HAND OF GOD - so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G.A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, GOD AND RIPLINGER - God as author and Riplinger as secretary."

After speaking about Christ being the Alpha and the Omega she says in The Language of the King James Bible p.79, “So English speaking Christians won’t feel left out, Jesus said, ‘from the righteous blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias.’ A to Z.”

Incidentally, she thinks that “music” is still spelt “musick”. “ ‘Music’ is spelled ‘musick’ everywhere in the world except in the United States.” ibid p.79, and “‘Always’ does not always (every time) convey the same as ‘alway.’ The KJV distinguishes between these two words…” ibid  p.84.

With such pseudo-scholarship in linguistics and semantics, where does that leave us? Is the KJV a perfect translation?

When we compare the KJV with itself and its previous printings and revisions we will see that in a few places there have been and still are errors and ambiguities. Corrections and improvements can be, and ought to be made, should there ever be a future revision.

The translators’ manuscripts from which the printers worked have disappeared. The first KJV Bibles printed in 1611 contained errors and even the ones today still retain some minor ones.

The first edition of 1611 came to be called the "he" version, because of a mistake in the printing of Ruth 3:15: "Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: And he [should have been "she"] went into the city."

 The second one printed in 1611 had Ruth 3:15 corrected, and was therefore called the "she" version. However, this edition contained its own set of errors, including Matthew 26:36, which was rendered: "Then cometh Judas [should have been "Jesus"] with them unto a place called Gethsemane."

Several KJV Bibles published in the seventeenth century got their nicknames because of typographical errors.

The so-called Murderer’s Bible misprints “murderers” instead of the correct word “murmurers” in Jude 16. Mark 7:27 had: “Let the children first be killed” (instead of “filled”).

The Wife-Hater Bible tells a man to hate his own wife: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father . . . yea, and his own wife also.” Of course, “wife” should read “life.”

The Adulterer’s or Wicked Bible, a 1631 King James Version, left out an essential “not” and had “Thou shalt commit adultery.” King Charles fined the printer Robert Barker the huge sum of £300 and removed his license to print Bibles.

A 1716 KJV Bible made a common typographical mistake by transposing letters.  Instead of John 8:11 reading, “Go, and sin no more,” it read, “Go and sin on more.”

The Printer’s Bible had “printers” instead of “princes” in Ps. 119:161).

    KJV with "Judas" instead of "Jesus"

                Wicked Bible  

   Even today, one KJV may differ from another, depending upon the publisher. For example, in Jeremiah 34:16, the Oxford KJV has “whom he” while the Cambridge KJV has “whom ye”. An Oxford edition of the KJV has “fleeth” at Nahum 3:16 while a Cambridge edition has “flieth”. At 2 Chronicles 33:19, the Oxford KJV has “sins” while the Cambridge KJV has “sin”.

The New Testament (NT) of the KJV was largely based on William Tyndale’s NT. Unfortunately, in a few places instead of making improvements, the KJV translators made it worse. Here are some examples:

Hebrews 10:23 “and let us keep the profession of our hope without wavering (for he is faithful that promised).” [Tyndale with modernised spelling]

“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised).” [KJV]

The Greek word for “hope” [elpis] was translated as “faith” in the KJV.

Luke 14:10 “Then shalt thou have praise in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.” [Tyn]

“Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.” [KJV]

The Greek word “doxa” [“glory”] was translated as “worship”. As the context is in reference to men, this is unfortunate.

In Rev 18:13 the Greek word “soma” was translated correctly by Tyndale as “body” whereas the KJV mistranslated it as “slave”.

Matthew 26:27 “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.” [KJV] This is ambiguous. It could mean, “All of you must drink” or “finish all the drink.” The original Greek makes it clear. Tyndale’s translation is also very clear. “Drink of it every one.”

During Tyndale’s time the apostrophe denoting possession was not yet in current use, so Matthew 14:9 was translated in this was, “for his othes sake” [original spelling]. The KJV has “oath's sake”. The apostrophe was put in the wrong place. It should have been “oaths’”, the apostophe coming after the “s” because the original Greek word [orkous] is in the plural.

Matthew 14:9 “And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her.”

John 10:16 “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold. Them also must I bring that they may hear my voice and that they may be one flock and one shepherd.” [Tyn, modern spelling]

“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” [KJV]

The KJV has the word “fold” appearing twice in this verse. There are in fact two different Greek words here, “aule, auvlh”/ and “poimne, poi,mnh”, respectively. The former means “a fold, enclosure, courtyard” and the latter means “a flock, especially of sheep.” Therefore, Tyndale was correct in translating “poimne” as “flock” and the KJV translators were wrong in using the word “fold”.  

Tyndale translated the Greek word, "agape" as "love" in 1 Cor 13 whereas the KJV translators used the word "charity" which had various other connotations connected with almsgiving. The Greek for "alms" is "eleemosune" which is different from "agape".

One area where the translators improved on Tyndale was by almost eliminating the word “Easter” from the NT. Tyndale used this word about 25 times to translate the Greek word “pascha”, which is in turn derived from the Hebrew “pesach”. The KJV correctly changed this to “Passover”, but left it as “Easter” in Acts 12:4 “And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”

Although some AV perfectionists argue that this is a reference to a pagan Babylonian festival, one can legitimately counter-argue that to Tyndale who used the expressions “paschall lambe” and “ester lambe” interchangeably [e.g. Mark 14:12], the word “Easter” had the same meaning as “Passover”. “And the fyrste daye of swete breed when men offer the pascall lambe his disciples sayd vnto him: where wilt thou that we goo and prepare that thou mayst eate the ester lambe?”  

For more information on this see The Use of 'Easter' in Acts 12.4

In John 1:12 The Greek word "tekna" is used which means "children". The KJV wrongly translates this as "sons".

There are those who delude themselves and wish to deceive others that the KJV translators knew better than the Holy Spirit when in fact the translators themselves made no such claims (2Pet 1:21). This invariably results in faulty theology and such people who show cultic tendencies must be avoided.

A certain KJV-only perfectionist was preaching on “the Great Tribulation” from his favourite book in the Bible, Revelation. According to dispensationalists, the Bible describes different “tribulations” and the definite article “the” is necessary to describe the tribulation period during the reign of the anti-christ, the latter half of a seven-year period after the rapture. When the preacher got to Rev 7:14 “These are they which came out of great tribulation”, he hesitated. It seemed that he wanted so much to say, “The original Greek has the definite article and is better translated “the great tribulation” but his views on the KJV being perfect would not allow him to make this bold correction…. Eventually, he mumbled that from the Greek, putting “the” would also be correct.

Ironically, many KJV-perfectionists are also followers of Scofield’s dispensationalism. Scofield was really no friend of the AV or the Textus Receptus from which the AV is translated. In the introduction to the Scofield Bible, he wrote, “The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. and labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies…Such emendations of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition…” Scofield’s notes often “correct” the AV to suit his doctrines e.g. In a note referring to 1Cor1:7 he wrote, “The expression "day of Christ," occurs in the following passages: 1Co 1:8; 5:5; 2Co 1:14... A.V. has "day of Christ," 2Thes 2:2 incorrectly, for "day of the Lord" …The "day of Christ" relates wholly to the reward and blessing of saints at his coming, as "day of the Lord" is connected with judgment.” Scofield Reference Bible, page 1212.

We must inform and warn members of our churches not be deceived by such fables as "KJV Perfectionism".

2 Timothy 4:2-4 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Original 1611 KJV showing Exodus 21

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Septuagintophobia

by P. Karageorgi

This article is meant to be factually and historically accurate with a touch of humour

Septuagint - What is it? Quote from http://www.septuagint.net/

“Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.”

The Greek for LXX is ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα, hē metáphrasis tōn hebdomēkonta, [the translation of the 70] abbreviated to the letter “O” because in the Greek numbering system, “O” is equivalent to 70.

“Septuagintophobia” or “hebdomekontaphobia” is the irrational morbid fear of the Septuagint. Who suffers from this bizarre phobia? It is a common accompanying syndrome of KJV Onlyism or KJV Perfectionism or to give it its scientific name, “Mono-Basileus Iakobo-teleioitis”. The purpose of this article is to help these people, their relatives and friends by providing enough facts to reassure them that the Septuagint is quite harmless when understood in its true historical context and in fact can be useful and beneficial when used in the right way.

In The Answer Book by Samuel C. Gipp , from http://samgipp.com/answerbook/ , question 9 asks, What is the LXX?  Answer: A figment of someone's imagination.

 EXPLANATION:

First, let's define what the LXX is supposed to be. An ancient document called "The Letter of Aristeas" revealed a plan to make an OFFICIAL translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) in Greek. This translation was to be accepted as the official Bible of the Jews and was to replace the Hebrew Bible. Supposedly this translation work would be performed by 72 Jewish scholars (?), six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The supposed location of the work was to be Alexandria, Egypt. The alleged date of translation was supposedly around 250 BC... This so called "Letter of Aristeas" is the sole evidence for the existence of this mystical document. There are absolutely NO Greek Old Testament manuscripts existent with a date of 250 BC or anywhere near it. Neither is there any record in Jewish history of such a work being contemplated or performed... "What then," one might ask, "of the numerous quotes in the New Testament of the Old Testament that are ascribed to the LXX?" The LXX they speak of is nothing more than the second column of Origen's Hexapia [sic].   The last word in this paragraph should be “Hexapla”.

Another site promoting septuagintophobia is http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/faq/septugnt.html

If one researches the theory that the LXX is a post-NT document one will notice that the few proponents of this view tend to quote each other. The only scholarly name which is often cited is Paul Kahle. For example, http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/faq/septugnt.html

WAS THERE A PRE-CHRISTIAN SEPTUAGINT?
In his book Forever Settled (published by The Bible For Today: 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood. N.J. 08108 USA) Jack Moorman writes

... Thus Ruckman believes that manuscript evidence for a pre-Christian LXX is totally lacking.

A full text of “Forever Settled” is found here http://www.biblebelievers.net/bibleversions/kjcforv2.htm

But who was Kahle?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Kahle

 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10580.html

Did he really believe that a Greek translation of the OT did not exist before the birth of Christ?

A 1963 paper from Grace Theologically Seminary says that Paul Kahle believed there was a roughly standardized text of the LXX in existence in the first century BC.

http://home.insightbb.com/~cddilling/LXX.htm

… it is the opinion of Kahle and Nyberg that:

Both the LXX and the Syriac go back to old popular recensions which were in circulation among the Diaspora Jews, whereas the MT [Masoretic Text] offers a careful recension which stands in relation to the Diaspora text just as the texts of the classical authors established by the scholars of Alexandria stand in relation to the popular texts of those authors which are now available to us in the Egyptian papyri.

“Kahle’s position on the Septuagint isn’t too different from the common perception held by scholars today, though his specific conclusion is disputed. He agreed that the tradition derived from the Letter of Aristeas was spurious. He also knew that there were varieties of Greek translations of the Old Testament. However, he took it a step further to say that the varieties were not birthed by a single prototype; rather they were in existence before a single volume took shape. In other words, there was no one Septuagint to begin with, but very diverse translations that eventually culminated into one.” Quoted from http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/christ-and-the-scriptures-part-iii-jesus-bibliology/

Kahle is not only quoted by KJV Onlyites but also Jehovah’s Witnesses who use his work to support their use of “Jehovah” in their translation of the N.T. They refer to Greek O.T. manuscripts which show the divine name in Hebrew letters.

The following is a very generalised and brief explanation of the Greek O.T. and Kahle’s theory.

Kahle is indeed a very famous scholar (among students of the LXX) who was influenced by the targumic theory (the targums are the Aramaic translations of the OT which were given orally and then put down to writing, of which we have different versions for various books). While this theory works for the targums (although that is also debated) it has proven wrong for the LXX. Most LXX scholars reject Kahle's theory, especially after the discoveries of the Judean Desert and the work of Dominique Barthelemy (Les Devanciers d'Aquila) who shows how there is a LXX archetype which began to be revised in the first century BC or maybe earlier.

Most of the disagreements with people today arise because of wrong definitions. The LXX for example, what does that mean? It is like saying: The English Bible. Well, which version do you mean? This is not defined usually and confusion arises.

I will put the history of the Greek Bible in very simplistic terms. I will call the archetype, the Old Greek (OG) and proceed with what most scholars accept today. The Pentateuch was translated first around 3rd C. B.C. in Alexandria. The rest of the OT books were translated later but we are not certain of the time and location and by whom. We know that most books (with perhaps the exception of Ecclesiastes) were translated before mid-2nd century when Ben Sirach's grandson wrote his prologue and mentioned that the other OT books had been translated.

As soon as these OG versions had been individually completed, they were copied and often revised and corrected to match the Hebrew text more closely, also, others were known to have translated the OT later into Greek. Therefore, in the time of Christ, no one really had one copy of a book called the LXX. There were scattered copies everywhere of OG, revised copies, new Greek translations etc. Moreover, Origen in the 3rd C. AD decided to produce a corrected LXX and produced the Hexapla, a book in which he compared various existing Greek versions with the Hebrew. This "corrected" version took all of those various versions into account. His version was widely distributed and became a kind of standard. Consequently, scholars today are in the very difficult situation of sifting through and trying to get rid of later corrections in order to recapture the original OG. As far as we know, nobody ever possessed the OG OT in its entirety. As soon as something was produced it was copied and revised and errors crept in. Scholars use other versions as well from other languages, e.g. Old Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic etc. which have been translated from the LXX in order to compare them to each other and compare the differences.

Therefore, there is some truth when people say "there was no LXX in the time of Jesus". There was no CORPUS of LXX writings collected together, or pure OG writings. The first collected Corpus of LXX is Codex Sinaiticus in the 4th century AD. It is true that sometimes scribes harmonised readings between the OT and the NT when something is quoted in the NT. When a NT writer quotes the OT differently than the Greek OT the scribe had before him, then he could have gone back and corrected the LXX because you could not have a NT writer quote something "erroneously". What the scribe did not know is that the NT writer could have been quoting from another Greek version he had at his disposal, or a revised version, or an older version than the one the scribe possessed. Every individual case is examined very thoroughly by scholars and every verse is different.

A very important manuscript dated around 50 BC is the Minor Prophets scroll which is in Greek and shows the OG that had already been corrected at that time. Philo (20 BC-50 AD) was also aware of the LXX and used it.

From http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html we read,

“The collection of writing recovered in the Qumran environs has restored to us a voluminous corpus of Jewish documents dating from the third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E., demonstrating the rich literary activity of Second Temple-period Jewry. The collection comprises documents of a varied nature, most of them of a distinct religious bent. The chief categories represented are biblical, apocryphal or pseudepigraphical, and sectarian writings. The study of this original library has demonstrated that the boundaries between these categories is far from clear-cut.”

The biblical manuscripts include what are probably the earliest copies of these texts to have come down to us. Most of the books of the Bible are represented in the collection. Some books are extant in large number of copies; others are represented only fragmentarily on mere scraps of parchment. The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. ...”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

“The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943).”

 No serious scholar denies the fact that the OT was translated into Greek before the time of Christ. While the Letter of Aristeas contains surreal details, there is some truth in it and such a major project of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek could only have started in Alexandria since it was the centre of ancient scholarship. Many other writings from all over the world were collected there and the large Jewish community in Alexandria was Greek speaking. Indeed that was the ideal time to undertake a Greek translation. It became a vital necessity for the Greek-speaking Jews. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The KJV Old Testament is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Masoretic Text is the source from which the KJV was translated into English. While the oldest complete manuscripts of the Septuagint date from the fourth century, the oldest complete Hebrew Old Testament, the Leningrad Codex, was copied in ~ 1008 A.D. There is not one complete Hebrew Old Testament extant manuscript dated before the birth of Christ. The oldest extant manuscripts of the Masoretic Text date from approximately the ninth century AD.

Therefore, using Septuagintophobic logic, the Hebrew O.T. “quotes” from the Greek N.T. and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of  N.T. – O.T. quotations, the later formulators of the Hebrew O.T. made it conform to the Greek N.T. text.     Of course, this is ridiculous.

What did the translators of the KJV think of the LXX?

Many of the older editions of the KJV included informative introductory material under the heading “The Translators to the Reader” 

[http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/trn-rdr.asp].

The quotes below are from this introduction or prologue to the KJV by the translators themselves and reveals what they thought of the LXX. They were not afraid to refer to it and to use it, neither did they believe it was written after the NT. Yes, they used it and declared that the Apostles used it. The translators of the KJV likened the LXX to the forerunner, John the Baptist. They knew that it was an imperfect translation of the Hebrew, nevertheless, they approved of it and made use of it.

The translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek.

While God be known only in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideon's fleece only, and all the earth besides was dry;⁴⁴ then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient. But when the fullness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God, should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then, lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek prince (Greek for descent and language), even of Ptolemy Philadelph, King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal. For the Grecians, being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the colonies, which thither they had sent. For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too. Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market-place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. It is certain that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to take that which they found (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations as though they made a translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded. This may be supposed to be some cause, why the translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no, not of the Jews. For not long after Christ, Aquilla fell in hand with a new translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus: yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the authors whereof were not known. These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. Howbeit the edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore not only was placed in the midst by Origen, (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius⁴⁵ gathereth) but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their commentaries.⁴⁶ Yea, Epiphanius above-named doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the authors thereof not only for interpreters, but also for prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperor,⁴⁷ enjoining the Jews his subjects to use specially the translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were, as it were, enlightened with prophetical grace.⁴⁸ Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit:⁴⁹ so it is evident, (and Saint Hierome⁵⁰ affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were interpreters, they were not prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek translations of the Old Testament.

An answer to the imputations of our adversaries.

Also found in the KJV’s “The Translators to the Reader”

Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part: and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c.⁸⁷ A man may be counted a virtuous man though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all⁸⁸) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express. Judge by an example or two. Plutarch⁸⁹ writeth, that after that Rome had been burnt by the Gauls, they fell soon too build it again: but doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, not proportion the houses, in such comely fashion as had been most sightly and convenient; was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good patriot, that sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good prince, that did indeed set it on fire? So, by the story of Ezra⁹⁰ and the prophecy of Haggai it may be gathered that the Temple built by Zerubbabel after the return from Babylon was by no means to be compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembered the former wept when they considered the latter): notwithstanding, might this latter either have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or profaned by the Greeks? The like we are to think of translations. The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics, forsooth, were the authors of the translations, (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong) we marvel what divinity taught them so. We are sure Tertullian⁹¹ was of another mind: Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? Do we try men's faith by their persons? we should try their persons by their faith. Also S. Augustine was of another mind: for he, lighting upon certain rules made by Tychonius, a Donatist, for the better understanding of the Word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his own book, with giving commendation to them so far forth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seen in S. Augustine's third book De Doctrina Christiana.⁹² To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred years, were of another mind: for they were so far from treading under foot, (much more from burning) the translation of Aquila, a proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretics, that they joined them together with the Hebrew original, and the translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly be considered of and perused by all. But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.

The gospel writer Matthew quoted the LXX in Matt 1:23 when he used the word “parthenos” / “virgin” instead of the general word meaning “young woman” [Hebrew: almah]. He could have used the Greek word “neanis”. In fact, this was the word used in a revised LXX edited by anti-Christian people e.g. Aquila of Pontus (about 126 A.D.).

The translators of the KJV used the word “virgin” in Isa 7:14 which shows they followed the LXX translation.  Of course, Matthew’s use of “parthenos” was guided by the Holy Spirit.

There are many other quotations of the OT in the NT which are taken from the Greek LXX rather than the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The reader can do his / her own research to find out which are the verses in question. Those who are certain that the Holy Scriptures (i.e. the Bible) are inspired by God, can say for sure that those parts of the LXX which are quoted in the NT must also be inspired. Parts of the LXX which are not quoted in the NT are not inspired. The Apostle Paul quoted a pagan Greek philosopher (i.e. Epimenides of Knossos, Titus 1:12 & Acts 17:28) but that doesn’t mean everything Epimenides said or wrote is inspired.

Parts of the LXX which are historically inaccurate and support such things as Prayers for dead (Tobit12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15) are obviously not inspired and should be treated with caution.

In some cases the translators of the KJV preferred to follow the LXX reading rather than the Hebrew MT. Below are some examples of this.

An OT prophetic scripture regarding the Messiah is Psalm 22:16   

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.   KJV

This actually reflects the LXX reading.

For many dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round: they pierced my hands and my feet.  LXX

Below are quotations from Jewish translations which follow the M.T.

For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.  Jewish Publication Society  OT 1917

Dogs surround me; a pack of evil ones closes in on me, like lions they maul my hands and feet.             JPS Tanakh 1985

From Jewish website

 http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm

For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet.

For more information on this see

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Ps22.16.pdf http://isv.org/catacombs/psalm_22_v16_like_a_lion.htm

In Job 41:6 KJV follows the LXX in using “make a banquet” instead of the Hebrew “bargain/sell/traffic” – see http://www.creationism.org/lang/LangJobScience/LangJobSci41.htm

The following information is taken from: James D. Price, Ph.D., Prof. of Hebrew and OT, Temple Baptist Seminary, Chattanooga, TN USA.

However, I have removed from the list what I consider spurious verses where the differences were due to translation rather than textual differences and where I could not easily substantiate what was being claimed.

 2 Chron 17:4--Hebrew  God

                                LXX, KJV 1611  LORD God

                                KJV 1769  LORD God 

 Song 4:1; 6:5--Hebrew  going down

                                LXX, KJV  appear

 Isa 57:8--lit. hand (figure of nudity)

                                LXX, KJV [omits the word]

Hos 13:16--Hebrew  is held guilty

                                LXX, KJV  become desolate

 The following are a few examples of where the KJV follows the LXX and the Vg against the Hebrew MT:

 Gen 7:22--Hebrew Spirit

                                LXX, Vg, KJV (omits the word)

 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life,     KJV 

And all things which have the breath of life,    LXX

all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, Jewish Publication Society  OT 1917

all in whose nostrils is breath of a living spirit Young’s Literal Translation  1898

 Num 10:29--Hebrew  Reuel

                                LXX, Vg, KJV  Raguel

KJV transliterates the LXX spelling.

 Psalm 39:13--Hebrew remove your [gaze] / look away

                                LXX, Vg, KJV O spare me.

 For further information on the Septuagint refer to the following article:

The Septuagint: God's Blessing on Translation

by Debra E. Anderson

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/lxx.asp

This article takes a balanced approach regarding the LXX and it is published by a society which promotes the KJV only for the English-speaking world. However, TBS do not claim the KJV is perfect. This is why it uses the original Greek [i.e. TR] and Hebrew [i.e. MT] as the basis for any new translations they undertake.

Septuagintophobia is irrational just like Mono-Basileus Iakobo-teleioitis. If you find that the sufferer will not listen then it is better to agree to disagree and avoid the subject. If that person is willing to fellowship with you despite your differences then concentrate on aspects you have in common. Remember, 1 Peter 4:8   And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. [KJV]

Of course, the Word “charity” should have been translated “love”. The Greek word is “agape”.  The Greek word for “charity” or “alms” is “eleemosune”. Tyndale translated the word “agape” correctly by using the word “love”. The Geneva Bible retained “love” but unfortunately the KJV translators changed it to “charity”. Oh no! We’re arguing again with the Mono-Basileus Iakobo-teleioites and if they say it’s “charity” then it must be “charity”. Who am I to argue?

__________________________________________________________________________

What David Cloud thinks of  G. Riplinger and her book http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm dead link

try http://web.archive.org/web/20080114045847/http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/riplinger2.htm dead link

try http://web.archive.org/web/20080113111735/http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/riplinger2.htm

  http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/riplinger3.htm dead link

try http://web.archive.org/web/20080113105348/http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/riplinger3.htm

What G. Riplinger thinks of David Cloud http://www.av1611.org/kjv/omadman.html

                         http://www.avpublications.com/5_critiques/o_mm_pt2.htm

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A Sermon on "Who Chose Who?" [first preached at Bethel, 6 March 2005]

 John 12:20-50  ²⁰ And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:  ²¹ The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.  ²² Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.  ²³ And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.  ²⁴ Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.  ²⁵ He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.  ²⁶ If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.  ²⁷ Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.  ²⁸ Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.  ²⁹ The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.  ³⁰ Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.  ³¹ Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.  ³² And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. ³³ This he said, signifying what death he should die.  ³⁴ The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?  ³⁵ Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.  ³⁶ While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.  ³⁷ But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:  ³⁸ That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?  ³⁹ Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,  ⁴⁰ He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.  ⁴¹ These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.  ⁴² Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:  ⁴³ For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.  ⁴⁴ Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.  ⁴⁵ And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.  ⁴⁶ I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.  ⁴⁷ And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.  ⁴⁸ He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.  ⁴⁹ For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.  ⁵⁰ And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 PRAY

 Our subject this evening is very deep and dare I say, controversial. It’s a subject that we’ll never fully understand this side of eternity. I hope and pray that I will do it some justice. I read a book on sermon preparation which said you must start off with an interesting and relevant illustration that will help the listeners to understand your sermon. So here goes. [Give illustration of glass of water --- half empty or half full?]

 Three blind brothers went to the zoo. They had never seen an elephant. Not even a photo of one. They were blind from birth. Anyway they managed to get into the elephant enclosure without being spotted by the keepers. One of them went to the front of the elephant and felt its trunk. The other went to the side and felt its ear and the third who was quite short felt one of its back legs. When they got home they described to their youngest brother who had never seen an elephant what it was like.

The conversation went something like this: Oh, an elephant is like a snake, long and able to move and wrap around things.  No, it’s not, it’s flat, flappy and wide, rather like a leather fan. No, no, it’s like a tree trunk with huge toes.

 The youngest brother was really confused. Who was telling the truth. Surely, they can’t all be true.

 This illustration shows that due to the blind men’s limitations they could each understand a certain small aspect of what an elephant is. They weren’t really contradicting each other. All they had to do was combine their understanding to get a clearer picture.

 So it is with certain doctrines in the Bible. Man is finite, physical. He has a limited understanding of the infinite and spiritual. For example, we can never fully understand God.

 Psalm 139:1-6   O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.  ² Thou knowest my ¹ downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.  ³ Thou ¹ compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.  ⁴ For there is not a word in my ¹ tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.  ⁵ Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine ¹ hand upon me.  ⁶ Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

 God is transcendent. By this we mean that God is above and beyond all of His creative works. God is not to be confused with anything that is created. When God is confused or identified with His creation this is the grossest form of idolatry.

 Romans 1:22-23  ²² Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,  ²³ And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

 In this life, we will never fully comprehend the mystery of the Trinity, the incarnation, the virgin birth of Christ. Some people have said, “I can’t believe in and worship something I cannot understand.” All I can say to them is, “Your god is very small – not worth worshipping.”

 Of course, God uses human language to communicate with us. The Bible is the word of God. It is written in human language but divinely inspired. In order to help us understand spiritual things, the Bible often uses human relationships.

 For example, God’s love for Israel is described in a husband – wife relationship, idolatry is equivalent to adultery. Similarly, the church is the bride and Christ is the bridegroom. Being unfaithful to God is like being unfaithful to your husband or wife.

 In describing the relationship between the first and second person of the Trinity, we have a Father and Son relationship. We must remember such comparisons and analogies break down, if we stretch them too far.

 Many years ago, I was arguing with someone who didn’t believe in the Trinity. He was a unitarian and downgraded Christ to a created being, one who was not eternally pre-existent. He said that if Jesus is the son, by definition he must be younger than the Father and inferior to him. But the Bible teaches Christ is eternal.

Micah 5

² But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be ¹ little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose ² goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. –[this verse is mistranslated in most modern versions]

 The fact is the father-son analogy breaks down when we consider time. It will also break down in that human sons need a mother. Christ is eternally the Son of God, without the need of a mother. Here is where the Mormons go wrong. They teach that God the Father has a wife. There are religions that can’t accept Jesus is the Son of God because God isn’t married and can’t have children. This is carnal thinking.

 I said to this Unitarian, “I am a Christian. So is my wife. She is my sister in Christ. I married my sister. Does this mean that the Bible teaches incest is OK?” he hesitated for a few seconds then said, “Yes.” His wife was so embarrassed, she didn’t know where to look.

 When it comes to salvation, the Bible again uses certain analogies. Debt is a picture of sin. Forgiveness is seen as the cancellation of the debt by the person to whom the money is owed. Salvation is pictured as a gift. Something that you do not have to pay for or work for. It is a free gift.

 Romans 6:23   For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 Ephesians 2:8-9  For by  grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:  ⁹  Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 Do you know that there are Christians who believe that a person who has been saved can lose his or her salvation. Such people are afraid that they could lose their salvation. If they die during a period of backsliding they might go to hell. They reason a person can freely choose to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour and then years later to freely choose to reject him. I used to believe this a long time ago.

 Yes, if salvation is a gift, like a gift a friend gives you on your birthday, you happily and willingly accept it. But what if you fall out with that friend. You begin to hate him and decide to throw that gift away, so you are not reminded of him.

 This is the way I reasoned. If you believe, once saved – always saved, where’s the free will in that. You have free will before you become a believer, then after becoming a Christian you no longer have free will. You are a Calvinist, or at least a semi-Calvinist, if there’s such a word. I’m using the word “Calvinist” as a convenient label.

 It’s a convenient way of referring to someone who emphasizes God’s sovereignty and pre-destination whereas an Arminian emphasizes man’s free will. Instead of saying, Either of two very large herbivorous mammalian pachyderms, Elephas maximus of south-central Asia or Loxodonta africana of Africa, having thick, almost hairless skin, a long, flexible, prehensile trunk, upper incisors forming long curved tusks of ivory, and, in the African species, large fan-shaped ears. It’s more convenient just to say, elephant.

So I will use the labels Calvinist and Arminian for convenience.

 What does the Bible say about a saved person losing his salvation?

 John 10:27-29    ²⁸ And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.  ²⁹ My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

 Hebrews 13:5  he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

In this verse, just to emphasize this point the original Greek has 5 negative words. Ouv mh, se avnw/( ouvdV ouv mh, se evgkatali,pwÅ

ou me se ano oud ou me egkatalipo

 1 John 2 speaks of a great apostasy, a falling away at the end times. Look at verse 19   They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, , they would no doubt have continued with us:: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 This clearly shows that those who reject Christ, never really accepted him in the first place. Yes but what about the freedom to throw away the gift. Here again, the analogy breaks down. The Bible uses another analogy to describe salvation and that is being born. Everyone here has been born. We all have or had a mother and father. We did not choose to be born, neither did we choose who our parents would be. Even if we hate our parents because they are cruel to us, they are still our natural parents and nothing can ever change that. You can choose your friends but you can’t choose your relatives.

 Accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour means being born, born again into his family.

 John 3:3   ³ Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 John 1:11-13  ¹¹ He came unto his own, and his own received him not.  ¹² But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Let’s not forget verse 13.

 ¹³ Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 Some of us here may be accidents [so to speak] not really wanted by our parents but that’s not the way God sees us, no human being is an accident in God’s eyes.

All believers are born of God. We are in his family. Nothing can change that. We should find comfort in that.

 Once you are saved, you will still fall into sin but you can never rebel against God and fall away completely. Almost everyone agrees that in heaven there will be no more danger of apostasy. Does this mean that in glory men will be deprived of that freedom of choice which constitutes the distinguishing character of humanity, the gift that stands so high that even the sovereign purpose of God must be viewed as subordinate to it? Surely not! But if in glory perseverance is not inconsistent with freedom, why should it be thought incompatible on earth?

 It’s a part of heaven that we can claim now while on earth.

 Jesus said in John 12:25   ²⁵ He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

 In Luke’s gospel, it’s put like this, Luke 9:24   ²⁴ For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

 Note those important words, “for my sake”. For the sake of Christ. Christ gave his life on the cross, Galatians 3:13  ¹³ Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. 2 Corinthians 5:21  ²¹ For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin: that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Because of what he has done for us, we must give him our lives now to serve him.

 Romans 6:18-22    ¹⁸ Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.  ¹⁹ I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.  ²⁰ For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. {from...: Gr. to righteousness}  ²¹ What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.  ²² But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Romans 12:1    I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

 This is what Christ means by “losing your life.” Dedicating your life to God, no longer being a slave to sin.

 We, Christians, were once slaves to sin, but now we are servants of Christ. We still sin, we aren’t perfect yet, but we are no longer slaves, we can resist temptation and say NO to sin.           You know what the difference is between a Christian who sins and an unbeliever who sins. The Holy Spirit convicts the Christian. He feels guilty and dirty. He is sad that he has failed his Saviour. He wants to repent and give up the sin he is struggling with. On the other hand, the unbeliever revels in it. He delights in doing it. He sees nothing wrong in it. He continues doing sins.

 Do we have a choice whether to sin or not?  If  you believe you have complete free will, let me give you a challenge, I won’t say a bet, but a challenge. We all know God’s laws, the ten commandments, and we know how Christ magnified the law in the Sermon on the Mount, for example, lusting is equivalent to adultery, hating is equivalent to murder, we know God commands us to be perfect and obey him,  well here’s the challenge to all those that want to choose to obey God.

 For the following 7 days, obey all of the laws of God perfectly. Report to us next Sunday. I wonder if there’ll be anyone who will honestly be able to say, “Yes, for one whole week I managed to obey all of God’s laws perfectly.”

Do we really have a free choice?

Let’s not allow our own personal preferences obscure or ignore those verses on free will and pre-destination which express a fact that appears contrary to our opinion. Some would even rewrite the Bible and twist what the original languages say. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are well-known for mistranslating the Bible to fall into line with their own false theology. Many scriptures that clearly show the deity of Christ are twisted in their bible. But let’s stick to our theme and examine how they translate one particular verse. I’ll read it to you from their version.

 “When the nations heard this, they began to rejoice and to glorify the word of Jehovah, and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers.”

 One modern Greek Bible translates it this way, [I’ve accurately retranslated it in English so you can understand]

“And the nations on hearing rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord, and all the ones that had appointed themselves to eternal life believed.” A footnote to this verses stresses THEMSELVES and informs us the verb in the original Greek is reflexive. Now let’s see how the KJV translates it.

 Acts 13:47-48  And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

 Note “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” The modern Greek translator was wrong, the verb is not reflexive, it is passive. This extreme Arminian mistranslated the Bible to fit his theology. The true sense is that the believers had been ordained by God, not by themselves. And it is in the past tense.

 I decided to look up the word “choose” in the Bible using my computer and found the following: From Genesis to Deuteronomy it appears 26 times. 23 times it refers to God choosing and 3 times to man choosing. From Joshua to Malachi it appears 31 times about half of which refer to God and the other half to man. In the NT it only appears once, where Paul says, in Philippians 1:20-22    ²¹ For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.  ²² But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. I don’t know what to choose.

 I looked up the word “chosen”. In almost all cases, the context shows that what is chosen is chosen by God, the Father or Jesus Christ. In the NT it appears 28 times. Only in 4 cases it refers men or women doing the choosing. For example, in Luke 10:42  ⁴² But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. And in Acts there are three cases of  churches choosing men to be missionaries to send out.

 So who does the choosing? Did you choose Christ or did Christ choose you? Well there is a sense in which, if you are a believer, you did choose Christ but it is also true that Christ chose you. Both are true. Remember our illustration of the elephant and blind men at the beginning. The big question is who chose first and what emphasis does the Bible give on one over the other. What is the biblical balance?

 One of the main Greek words translated by the verb “to choose” is “eklogomai”. The noun “choice” is only found once in the KJV of the NT.

 Acts 15:7   ⁷ And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

 In Greek, the noun that is related to the verb “to choose” is “eklektos” and is translated as “the elect”. Look at Mark 13:20 where we have verb and noun together.  ²⁰ And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

 The word “elect” is found 4 times in the OT, all in Isaiah. On one occasion it refers to Christ and the other 3 refer to the nation of Israel. In the NT it is found 16 times. Once it is applied to Christ, once to angels and all the rest apply to the church or Israel.

 Who chose first? Well we know who loved first. According to John, 1 John 4:19   We love him, because he first loved us. 

 Ephesians 1:3-7   ³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: {places: or, things}  ⁴ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:  ⁵ Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,  ⁶ To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.  ⁷ In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Who chose first?

Paul wrote, “he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.”

Peter in his epistle writes to…. 1 Peter 1:2  the ² Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.”

 John 15:16-19   ¹⁶ Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.  ¹⁷ These things I command you, that ye love one another.  ¹⁸ If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.  ¹⁹ If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

 It may seem unfair, that God chooses some but not others but let scripture speak for itself.

Romans 9:9-31   ⁹ For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.  ¹⁰ And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;  ¹¹ (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)  ¹² It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Romans 9:13-21   ¹³ As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.  ¹⁴ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.  ¹⁵ For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.  ¹⁶ So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.  ¹⁷ For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.  ¹⁸ Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.  ¹⁹ Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?  ²⁰ Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?  ²¹ Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

 The amazing thing is not why God hated Esau but why God loved Jacob, who was a liar and a cheat.

 Even though God has chosen, the Bible shows that men are still responsible for their actions.

It has been said that God is a gentleman and won’t force you to do anything. Speak to Jonah about that who didn’t want to go to Ninevah but did in the end. Speak to Moses who didn’t want to lead Israel but did. Speak to Balaam who wanted to curse Israel but couldn’t. [He was forced not to curse]

 I cannot understand it all. I cannot explain it all.  BUT  Shouldn’t we love God all the more because He chose us when we did not deserve to be chosen?

 Finally a quote from Spurgeon. [WHO HELPED TO ESTABLISH BETHEL, WIMBLEDON]

 "Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. ... I recollect an Arminian brother telling me that he had read the Scriptures through a score or more times, and he could never find the doctrine of election in them. ... There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer - I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield [a Calvinist] and John Wesley [an Arminian]. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one of whom the world was not worthy. I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see the truths, or at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinists in or out of heaven."

 Charles H. Spurgeon, from "A Defense of Calvinism"

Spurgeon realized that great men who were used by God were divided on this issue. Your salvation does not depend on whether you believe in one or the other. We should be mature enough to show love and respect to brothers and sisters in Christ who hold a different view from us on this matter. May God help us do this.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Invited or Compelled? 

[first preached at Church of England (Continuing), Wimbledon 22 May 2006]

 Matthew 22:1-14  And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,  ² The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,  ³ And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.  ⁴ Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.  ⁵ But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:  ⁶ And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.  ⁷ But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.  ⁸ Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.  ⁹ Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.  ¹⁰ So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.  ¹¹ And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:  ¹² And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.  ¹³ Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  ¹⁴ For many are called, but few are chosen.

 Luke 14:12-24  ¹² Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.  ¹³ But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:  ¹⁴ And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.  ¹⁵ And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.  ¹⁶ Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:  ¹⁷ And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.  ¹⁸ And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.  ¹⁹ And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.  ²⁰ And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.  ²¹ So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.  ²² And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.  ²³ And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.  ²⁴ For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

 English is a peculiar language which is difficult to master especially at an advanced level. Here are some problems that confuse foreigners learning English.

 Worth / worthless  Value / valueless  Price / priceless

 Priceless does not mean what foreigner thinks.

 Valid / invalid  correct / incorrect       valuable / invaluable   flammable / inflammable

Invaluable and inflammable don’t mean what most foreigners think.

British English confuses Americans eg public school is an expensive fee-paying private school.  American public school is a British state school.

In God’s providence English was not used as the original inspired language of the Bible. God chose Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Let’s not be like some ignorant people who say, “If King James’ English is good enough for Christ and his apostles, it’s good enough for me.”

We can always benefit a little more and gain extra insight by consulting the original languages of the Bible.

In God’s sovereignty and providence, he not only chose the languages of the Bible, he also chose the elect. In fact, elect means chosen. He chose who to save.

Christ said to his disciples, John 15:16   ¹⁶ Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit.

But there is a sense in which it is applied to all believers.

Ephesians 1:3-5  ³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:  ⁴ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:  ⁵ Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.

Revelation 17:14  ⁴ These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

 1 Peter 2:9  ⁹ But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 

[Below is shown in Greek using "Bwgrkl" font. It may not appear correctly unless you have this font.]

 1 Peter 2:9  ⁹  u`mei/j de. ge,noj evklekto,n( basi,leion i`era,teuma( e;qnoj a[gion( lao.j eivj peripoi,hsin( o[pwj ta.j avreta.j evxaggei,lhte tou/ evk sko,touj u`ma/j kale,santoj eivj to. qaumasto.n auvtou/ fw/j\

 This was, of course, applied to the nation of Israel  but is now applied to the believers in Christ. In other words, the Church. Greek Ekklesia. Literally, CALLED OUT. It is two words EK out of, and KALEW, to call or invite.

 If God chose who he was going to save, what about human free will and responsibility for our own choices and actions?

 Matthew 12:36  ³⁶ But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

 Romans 14:12   ¹² So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

 What about passages in the Bible that apparently show that Christ died for the whole world and man freely choosing and being invited?

 Revelation 22:17   ¹⁷ And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

 Matthew 11:28-30   ²⁸ Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  ²⁹ Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  ³⁰ For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

John 1:9  ⁹ That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. … verse  ¹² But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

 John 3:16-17  ⁶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  ¹⁷ For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 John 12:32  ³² And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. …verse  ⁴⁶ I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

 1 John 2:1-2  My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:  ² And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

We need to understand and reconcile seemingly contradictory scriptures. However, we must realize that our finite minds, at present, will never fully achieve this.

God is love. He loves his creation. Nevertheless, He is a holy and righteous God who hates evil and must punish sin.

Habakkuk 1:13  ¹³ Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity.

We often think of the nations of Egypt and Assyria as enemies of God and that He hates them and enjoys punishing them. But listen to this:-

Isaiah 19:23-25  ²³ In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.  ²⁴ In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:  ²⁵ Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

 Jonah 4:10 ¹⁰ Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:  ¹¹ And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle.

 God is not a sadist who enjoys hurting people.

Ezekiel 33:11  As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

 Jesus said in Matthew 5:43-45  ⁴³ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.  ⁴⁴ But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;  ⁴⁵ That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Luke 6:35-36  ³⁵ But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.  ³⁶ Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

It is natural to love your friends and hate your enemies. What Christ commanded us to do was to love our enemies. Surely, this is a reflection on what God does. It is a reflection of his character. And we are to do likewise.

Matthew 5:48  ⁴⁸ Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 Romans 5:8   ⁸ But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 God loves his creation and desires to save each one. Matthew 23:37   ³⁷ O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

1 Timothy 2:3-4  ³ For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;  ⁴ Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

It is the duty of Christians to present the gospel to sinners and to present it in the way the Bible shows us, not with gimmicks or tricks, not in trivial or worldly ways but in biblical ways and by using the same balanced approach. Sinners should be invited to come to Christ, as in Matthew 11:28-30   ²⁸ Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  ²⁹ Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  ³⁰ For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

But we must never forget what comes before verse 28, that is verse 27  ²⁷ All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

When we ask people to receive Christ, we don’t need sentimental, emotional hymns and music to soften the hearts. We don’t need to ask people to raise their hands and come to the front. We must remember that it is God who is responsible for our spiritual birth. John 1:12-13  ¹² But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:  ¹³ Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

We can reason with people and prove the gospel using history, archaeology and science. Isaiah 1:18-20   ¹⁸ Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.  ¹⁹ If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:  ²⁰ But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Acts 17:2-4   ² And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,  ³ Opening and alleging [showing], that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.  ⁴ And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

We need to persevere with people. Romans 10:21 - 11:1   ²¹ But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.  [Romans 10:21  ²¹ But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."]

We must warn as Christ did. Luke 13:5  ⁵ I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

We should implore people to be reconciled to God as the Apostle Paul did. 2 Corinthians 5:20  ⁰ Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead [on Christ’s behalf], be ye reconciled to God.

And one other way, we must be bold enough to order people, to command them.

Acts 2:38  ³⁸ Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter uses the word “Repent” Acts 2:38  Metanoh,sate( which is in the imperative, 2^nd person plural. It is not “Please, I would make a polite request, if you don’t mind, I think it would be a good that you ought to repent.” It is a strong and direct command to all the people listening. The words “be baptized” are also in the imperative. But grammatically, this type of imperative, no longer exists in modern Greek, neither does it exist in English, so translations often don’t get it 100% correct. NT Greek also had a 3^rd person imperative.

Let me explain: If a sergeant said to his men, “Fire!” He is ordering the men that are listening to him to fire at the enemy. This is a second person imperative. For a third person imperative, in English, we often use the word “let”. “Let him fire.” This might be said when the person referred to is not present. Notice that when you say, “Let him fire” it just doesn’t sound as strong. It’s as though he is given permission to fire but he doesn’t have to if he is unwilling to do so.

As we saw at the beginning, English is a peculiar language. The peculiar thing here, is that when 3^rd person imperative is expressed in a negative way, it is strong and unambiguous. Eg John 14:1  Let not your heart be troubled:= Your heart must not be troubled.

Romans 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body= sin must not reign in your body.

Don’t allow it. It is forbidden.

The imperative in New Testament Greek, is still as strong in 3^rd person as it is in 2^nd person, whether expressed negatively or positively. Let us use an example from the Bible which can lead to a misunderstanding if we are not careful.

Revelation 22:17  ¹⁷ And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The word “Come” in the first two cases is in the 2^nd person singular imperative. It is a command, an order to come. It means, “you must come”.  In the third occurrence of the word “come” i.e. “let him that is athirst come”, it is in the 3^rd person singular imperative. “He or she must come.” The one who is thirsty must come. The “water of life” is a gift. There is no need to pay. The water of life is free.

“And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” “Let him take” is also in the 3^rd person singular imperative.

“Whosoever will” whoever has the desire, whoever wants, feels the need to drink, to quench his thirst, then “let him take” better still, he MUST take. This verse has often been misused by those who put too much emphasis on man making the decision to allow Christ to enter our heart.

Another misused verse is Revelation 3:20   ²⁰ Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

I’ve heard it said that the door has no handle on the outside, so Christ cannot come in. The handle is on the inside only, [there is a famous painting showing this]. and can only be opened by the person inside. This makes a mockery of God’s sovereignty. Jesus spoke these words to the church of Laodicea, not to unbelievers. Many in the church had backslidden and needed to repent. ¹⁹ As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. 

“Repent” is a command, it is in the imperative.

It is necessary for all sinners, believers and unbelievers, to repent. However, the lost unbeliever, in particular, is a slave to sin. He cannot repent. But he must repent. His only recourse is to look away from himself and look to Christ, the only one who can save. There is no help in himself. His only hope is to call on God for mercy. And a God of mercy will never cast out those who come to him in faith.

Ultimately, it is God who enables us to receive Christ. In the parable at the beginning, we saw in Matthew 22:14  For many are called, but few are chosen.

How do we reconcile scriptures that say Christ died only for the elect with those that say he died for the world?

God loves all His creation but the Bible teaches he has a special love for his chosen. Jeremiah 31:3  ³ The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

We see that Christ came to die for those who he loved the most.

Matthew 1:21  ²¹ And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Mark 10:45  ⁴⁵ For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransome for many.

Here it says “many” not all. Yet 1 Timothy 2:6 says He “gave himself a ransome for all”.

If Christ died for all, that is, every person that has been born and will be born, this means that there will be no one in hell. Everyone is saved. This is known as “Universal Salvation”. Many verses in the Bible clearly show this doctrine is false.

Well, let’s look at how “all” is used. Mark 1:4-5  ⁴ John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.  ⁵ And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Does the “all” here mean every man, woman, child and newborn baby? What about “many of the Pharisees and Sadducees” who came that opposed John, the Baptist? Are they included in the “all”? Absolutely not!

One of the hardest things for the Jews and first Christians [who were Jewish] to understand and accept is that the God of Israel is also the God of all the nations. The Messiah was for all, not just for the Jews. Read Acts 10 to see what Peter's attitude was and how Paul had to rebuke him (Gal 2:11).

Paul said in Romans 1:16 ¹⁶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Of course, "Greek" is symbolic for the "Gentiles". This really defines the Biblical meaning of "all", "every one" and "world".

The Apostle John, 2000 years ago, had a glimpse of heaven. He saw people of every nationality and language.

Revelation 5:9  ⁹ And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.

So when the Bible speaks of Christ dying for all, or dying for the whole world, it means that He died for sinners of all nationalities, not just for Israelites.

It is my prayer, that having brought all these scriptures to our attention, we may have a better understanding of God’s Sovereignty in salvation and witness the gospel to a dying sinful world in a much bolder manner.

Let us be obedient servants as in the parable. Rather, [Luke 14:23] we must be obedient servants. We must go into the public places and not just invite but compel them to come in, that His house may be filled. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Article Below is From http://hometown.aol.com/brwoodbc/invite.html

The public invitation or post-sermonic altar call may be defined as an appeal made by a preacher at the conclusion of his message for people to leave their seats and come forward to an area near the pulpit in order to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour. The question that must be asked about this common practice is as follows: Is it BIBLICAL?

I. The History of the Public Invitation

A. It was not used by the Old Testament patriarchs or prophets.

B. It was not used by John the Baptist.

C. It was not used by the Lord Jesus Christ.

D. It was not used by the New Testament apostles.

E. As far as is known, it was not used by anyone, anywhere until it was spontaneously introduced by Eleazar Wheelock in 1745.

F. As far as is known, it was not used widely until it was popularized by Charles Finney during the 1830s.

II. The Heterodoxy of the Public Invitation

A. It makes “coming forward” and “coming to Christ” practically synonymous.

B. It makes “coming forward” a condition for salvation.

C. It makes conversion to Christ an external, physical act.

D. It makes many people converts to a particular preacher or church without their becoming converts to Christ.

E. It makes the number of external, physical responses the measure of “success.”

F. It makes psychological manipulation more important than Biblical exposition and Holy Spirit conviction.

G. It makes “coming forward” a substitute for baptism.

H. It makes more mature Christians who know their Bibles well very uncomfortable, because they recognize the fact that tradition has replaced truth as the supreme and final authority in this matter. They know this can only be damaging.

“I am going to ask you to come forward. Up there---down there---I want you to come. You come right now---quickly. If you are with friends or relatives, they will wait for you. Don’t let distance keep you from Christ. It’s a long way, but Christ went all the way to the cross because He loved you. This is how we are going to do it---Get up right now and come to the front.” Billy Graham

“Many of us in our preaching will make such statements as, ‘Now, in conclusion’; ‘Finally, may I say’; ‘My last point is . . .’ These statements are sometimes dangerous. The sinner knows five minutes before you finish; hence he digs in and prepares himself for the invitation so that he does not respond. However, if your closing is abrupt and a lost person does not suspect that you are about finished, you have crept up on him and he will not have time to prepare himself for the invitation. Many people may be reached using this method.” Jack Hyles

“Where the spectacular element in public soul-winning is eliminated there is little opportunity to count supposed results, and the test of conversion is taken wholly out of the sphere of profession and made to rest on the reality of a changed life afterwards.” Lewis Sperry Chafer

“One should never speak against invitations, for they arise out of the necessities of New Testament faith. The gospel message itself consists of an invitation to all sinners to find forgiveness, to all the weary to find rest, and to all heavy-laden to find relief. Those who want to learn from Christ are urged to come to Him. Thus, the whole message either implies or consists of invitation---yea, even beyond invitation unto command. The reality of this, however, should not be confused with public altar calls or the invitation system.” Thomas Nettles

“History tells us that whenever the gospel was preached men were invited to Christ---not to decide at the end of a sermon whether or not to perform some physical action. The Apostle Paul, the great evangelist, never heard of an altar call, yet today some consider the altar call to be a necessary mark of an evangelical church. In fact, churches which do not practice it are often accused of having no concern for the lost. Neither Paul nor Peter ever climaxed his preaching with forcing upon his hearers the decision to walk or not to walk. It is not only with church history, then, but with Scriptural history as well that the altar call is in conflict.

“Men today need to be reminded that coming to Christ is not walking an aisle, but casting oneself on Christ for life or death. May God cause the church to return to the Scriptures for its methods of winning men to Christ. May sinners be charged not to come forward in a meeting, but to come to the Lord Jesus Christ.” James Adams

“When a person truly understands that God is responsible for the effectual call, all the gimmicks, gadgets, and psychological trickery that men have resorted to in our day will be regarded as futile . . . Long invitations, ‘altar calls,’ and emotional appeals do not bring men to Christ, God does (I Cor. 2:4-5).” Tom Ross

________________________________________________________________________________________

From http://www.victorybaptist.us/show.wc?msgaltarcall

Why We Don't Use The Altar Call

By Laurence A. Justice

An altar call is an appeal for an immediate public response to a sermon just preached. It is popularly called the invitation and as used in this context is an appeal for a public act of commitment and can involve hand raising, going to a counseling area or signing a commitment card. Most often it involves walking down the aisle to the front of a church auditorium. The altar call is tacked on to the end of a sermon and the invitation usually is to "come forward and accept Christ as your Savior." Various emotional techniques such as telling sad, tear jerking stories and playing mood-creating music in the background are employed to encourage response to the altar call.

Like many of you I grew up in churches which used the invitation system and in the early years of my ministry I used it myself before finally seeing its implications and its inconsistency with God’s grace. In those years we sang verse after verse of invitation hymns like "Just As I Am" and we sometimes sang on for an hour or more trying to get people to come forward. I once had an evangelist in a church where I pastored and his entire program consisted of night after night telling sob story after sob story climaxing with the saddest one of all and then giving an invitation to come to the front and accept Christ.

So firmly entrenched has the altar call become in our modern churches that I have had people ask me on several occasions, How can people be saved if you don’t give an invitation? Preachers who do not give altar calls are often criticized as not being evangelistic.

We do not have an altar call in the services of our church! We do not extend an invitation at the close of our services for people to make some kind of physical demonstration that they are trusting Christ. What I shall do in this sermon is explain just why we don’t! First of all we do not do it

It is vitally important in this practice as in all others that we look closely at the scriptures to find what they teach about this practice. As we do we find that the invitation is never commanded in God’s word. Search the scriptures as you will, there is no command in any scripture for us to use this method. Not only this, there is no precedent in scripture for using the altar call. The Lord Jesus never in his earthly ministry gave an invitation. The apostles of our Lord never in all their ministries used the altar call.

In Acts 2:36-37 we are told that at Pentecost 3,000 people were saved but no altar call was used. The saving of those 3,000 was the work of the Holy Spirit of God and not of clever emotional appeals to come to the front of the meeting place. Whatever reasons one may give for using the altar call, it is a fact that it cannot be supported from the word of God.

As we have already pointed out, some people believe and teach that if one does not give an invitation in connection with his sermon he is not evangelistic. But we cannot be more evangelistic than the New Testament and the altar call or invitation system is not to be found in the pages of the New Testament. Actually having an altar call is a departure from scriptural requirements and practice.

In the New Testament and in Christian history up until the year 1820 AD sinners were invited to Christ, not to decide at the end of a sermon whether to perform some physical action. You will search Christian history in vain for an altar call or invitation before about 1820. George Whitefield, the greatest evangelist perhaps of all time never used the altar call. Charles Spurgeon under whose preaching more people were saved than perhaps any other pastor over the centuries never gave an invitation.

Well, where did the altar call come from if God’s word doesn’t teach it? The answer is that the altar call is a human invention that is less than 200 years old.

It is generally recognized that the altar call was invented by a Presbyterian evangelist named Charles G. Finney who lived from 1792-1875. Finney referred to the altar call as coming to the anxious seat or to the inquiry room and began using it in his evangelistic services in about 1820. Did the churches do it all wrong in the matter of evangelism until Finney came along in 1820 with his new system? How were people saved during the 1800 years of Christian history before the advent of Charles G. Finney? Evangelist D.L. Moody took Finney’s altar call and refined it and in turn it was passed on to its modern champion, Billy Graham.

In a paper he wrote called "The Christian," Billy Graham defends his use of the invitation system by resorting, not to the scriptures but to psychology when he says concerning the invitation, "Many psychologists would say it is psychologically sound." Biblical practices do not need the endorsement of psychology! There is absolutely no biblical authority for this practice! Yet today virtually all evangelists and pastors and churches use the altar call or invitation system.

Second, our church does not use the altar call or invitation system

God’s word teaches that because of the fall of Adam into sin man is by nature spiritually dead. As Paul states it in Ephesians 2:1 man is "dead in trespasses and sins." A man who is spiritually dead can do nothing spiritual. He can’t even will to repent of sin and trust in Christ. He is dead!

God’s word teaches that because of their depravity men are helpless to save or help save themselves. This means that there is absolutely nothing a sinner can do to save himself or prepare himself for salvation. Spiritually dead sinners can never come to Christ until God calls them with a special, powerful, effectual call. This is what the Lord Jesus is talking about in John 6:44 when He says, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him..." or literally, No man is able or has the power to come to me except the Father draw him."

Charles Finney, the inventor of the altar call, was a Pelagian in theology. Pelagianism is a damnable heresy which teaches that the fall of man in sin did not actually make him dead in sin. It is true man was damaged by the fall but he was not ruined by it this heresy says. Finney’s idea was that man is just sick in sin but he still has within him the ability to obey God and be pleasing to Him.

In his book "Systematic Theology" Finney says that man can do anything God requires of him and that all he needs to do so is to be induced to do so. Thus according to Finney man has a free will and has within him the ability to repent and to believe. This thinking of course squarely contradicts the Bible doctrine of man’s inability.

The whole question of the altar call or invitation can be reduced to the order of salvation. The word of God teaches that in the order of salvation, regeneration precedes conversion. In John 3:3 for example the Lord Jesus says that only those who are born again can see or comprehend or understand or appreciate the kingdom of God or spiritual things. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." God’s word makes clear that the Holy Spirit in the new birth enables a sinner to trust in Christ.

Arminians on the other hand say that one must believe or be converted in order to be regenerated. In his great booklet "The Invitation System" Iain Murray quotes Billy Graham as saying that we are "made alive by trust in Christ." This of course is just the opposite of what God’s word teaches about the order of salvation being regeneration and then faith and conversion.

In the same booklet Murray quotes Graham concerning Graham’s own conversion. "They were singing the last verse of the song when I went forward. That first step was the hardest I ever took in my life. But when I took it, God did the rest" and "the rest" in Graham’s thinking is the new birth! In this way of thinking poor God can’t do anything for a sinner until the sinner takes the first step!

If, as God’s word clearly teaches, regeneration must come before conversion in the order of salvation then the invitation system must be given up as contradictory to God’s word!

The gospel is not, do something physical and if you will, you will be saved! The gospel is, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!" The duty of sinners is not to come to the front of the building but to believe in Christ! To be saved sinners must come to Christ which means believe in Christ.

The Lord Jesus Himself says in Matthew 11:28, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Think about it! No one can now come to Christ with his feet because Christ is no longer physically present on this earth. Christ is not down here at the front of this church auditorium anymore than he is back there in the pew or outside in the parking lot or out on your back porch. As someone else has said, the fountain of life is not in front of the pulpit in some church building. The fountain of life is Christ Himself!

We don’t have to move a muscle to totally commit ourselves to the safe keeping of Christ the Savior for salvation. The altar call implies at least and it is often specifically stated that by coming to the front of a church building or some other auditorium at some preacher’s invitation, the one who comes becomes a Christian.

To those who practice the altar call salvation is equated with getting people to occupy a certain piece of geography at the front of a building. In doing this they effectively limit the sphere of God’s saving activity to a few square feet at the front of some building. My friend John Hunter of Anniston, Alabama calls this locational salvation because it makes the front of the church auditorium the location where people must go to be saved.

At Billy Graham’s first London Crusade he said one night in giving the invitation, "Don’t let distance keep you from Christ. It’s a long way but Christ went all the way to the cross because he loved you. Certainly you can come these few steps and give your life to Him." God’s word however does not teach that one is saved by changing his location but by believing in his heart!

Biblical salvation is not of works. It is not by doing something, anything at all. Instead it is by grace through faith according to Ephesians 2:8-9. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Faith itself is the gift of God and not the accomplishment or contribution of man to salvation. Colossians 2:12 calls faith "the operation of God" and Philippians 1:29 calls it a gift given. "For unto you it is given...to believe on him..."

Under the invitation system the idea constantly presented by the preacher is that the step forward is of great spiritual importance. Faith is presented as something a

man does in order to be saved. Believing in Christ is identified with coming to the front of the church building in response to the preacher’s appeal. But making an outward response the same thing as receiving Christ adds a condition of salvation that Christ Jesus never appointed. Works is the necessary evidence of salvation, not the prior condition of it. The altar call satisfies man’s natural desire to do something to save or help save himself.

Sola Scriptura means the scriptures only and it recognizes that God’s written word gives us everything we need for all matters of faith and practice. There is nothing God wants us to know or to do that is not found in His written word. According to II Timothy 3:16-17 God’s word is sufficient or completely adequate for all our spiritual needs. The altar call is a way of promoting religious experience by other means than those clearly appointed in God’s word so it is a denial of Sola Scriptura and of the sufficiency of God’s word.

The third reason our church does not use the altar call is

What have been the results of 200 years of using this unbiblical method called the altar call or the invitation? I submit to you that the results of the use of the altar call have been disastrous! There are at least three things that the invitation system does that cause great damage to the cause of Christ:

I say obviously false because so many converts of this system refuse to do the very first thing that Christ the Lord demands of his people and that is submit to scriptural baptism. There is a vast difference in the number claiming to be saved and the number actually baptized in this type of evangelism.

The other day I came across some statistics put out by Jim Elliff, a professor at Southern Baptists’ Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary here in Kansas City. By their own statistics Elliff says that among Southern Baptists out of every 100 professions of faith only 30 are later baptized and out of that 30 only 10 will show up at church on a given Sunday morning and of that 30 only 4 will show up on a given Sunday evening.

One well known altar call evangelist held a revival meeting in Oklahoma City in which 47 people professed to have been saved. A few weeks after that meeting I called the pastor of that church and asked him how many of those 47 he had baptized and he said, Three!

Walking the aisle and giving the pastor one’s hand often gives people doing so a false hope of salvation. These people believe that they are spiritually right with God simply because they have made the required step down the aisle though they have never truly come to Christ in faith trusting in Him as Lord and Savior. On any number of occasions I have asked people, when were you saved? only to have them respond, I went forward when I was 18 or when I was a child or at some other time.

Large numbers of those who have come into the churches with such counterfeit conversions have stayed there as formal, dead and deceived professors. I have known some such persons who have been awakened after years of such deception to realize that in their trips to the altar they did not come to Christ! How many people are in hell today because of this deception?

Many people who have sincerely and honestly gone through the invitation system have recognized that nothing actually happened to them. They tried it and it didn’t work and they know it is not real. They may also think that others who have tried it know that it doesn’t work and that they just don’t have the honesty to admit it to themselves. If their own experience is not real it is just natural for them to conclude that the experiences of others are false also.

Many converts of the invitation system feel that they have been tricked by the evangelist and their Christian friends into making such a move down the aisle. Ultimately this has produced skepticism and hostility toward the gospel and because of this realization many have fallen away from Christianity altogether.

In another city where I was pastor our church decided to knock on every door in our neighborhood and ask people if they were Christians. I was amazed to find that virtually all people responded that they were or used to be Christians but either were no longer so or did not now go to church. They all claimed to have been saved in some crusade or revival service.

Such results of the altar call can be seen in the two Southern Baptist churches I pastored in Oklahoma City. One had over 600 members, 300 of whom we could not find. The other had over 900 members, 750 of whom we could not find.

In his day Charles Spurgeon commented on the damage done to the cause of Christ by the use of the altar call. Iain Murray in his book "The Forgotten Spurgeon" quotes Spurgeon as saying, "I should like to go to the inquiry room. I dare say you would, but we are not willing to pander to popular superstition. We fear that in those rooms men are warmed into a fictitious confidence. Very few of the supposed converts of inquiry rooms turn out well. Go to your God at once, even where you are now. Cast yourself on Christ, at once, ere you stir an inch!"

Why do the churches keep on using this unscriptural practice of giving an altar call?

1. For one reason they fail to measure all things by God’s word. All of us have a tendency to accept things as being right without comparing them with God’s word to find out if they really are.

2. Another reason is the desire on the parts of many pastors and churches to report numbers because they see numbers as equal to success in the church. Counting large numbers of converts is irresistible to these pragmatists. Some of them don’t care if the invitation cannot be found in God’s word. It works and they say that is what is important in God’s work.

3. Thirdly the use of the altar call in a church indicates a failure to trust God to do His work in this world. These people do not really believe that God can do His saving work in this world without the wisdom and methods of man to help.

But how are people to be saved if we do not "give an invitation" at the close of the sermon? Christ’s invitation is found in Matthew 11:28 where he says to sinners, not, Come to the front of the church but "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest."

If we are to be true to God’s word we must direct sinners to Christ and not to the aisles in the church building. The messages of God’s preachers are filled with invitations for all men everywhere to come to Christ and be saved. We must be careful not to give the impression that a sinner’s eternal destiny hangs on the movement of his feet. Let us determine to stay with biblical methods of evangelism and plant, water and trust God for the increase in seeking the salvation of souls.

Adams, James E. Decisional Regeneration

Chantry, Walter Today’s Gospel, Authentic Or Synthetic?

Dabney, Robert L. An Exposition Of I Corinthians 3:10-15

Murray, Iain The Invitation System

From http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

A Sermon by CH Spurgeon

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon

IT IS A GREAT THING to begin the Christian life by believing good solid doctrine. Some people have received twenty different "gospels" in as many years; how many more they will accept before they get to their journey's end, it would be difficult to predict. I thank God that He early taught me the gospel, and I have been so perfectly satisfied with it, that I do not want to know any other. Constant change of creed is sure loss. If a tree has to be taken up two or three times a year, you will not need to build a very large loft in which to store the apples. When people are always shifting their doctrinal principles, they are not likely to bring forth much fruit to the glory of God. It is good for young believers to begin with a firm hold upon those great fundamental doctrines which the Lord has taught in His Word. Why, if I believed what some preach about the temporary, trumpery salvation which only lasts for a time, I would scarcely be at all grateful for it; but when I know that those whom God saves He saves with an everlasting salvation, when I know that He gives to them an everlasting righteousness, when I know that He settles them on an everlasting foundation of everlasting love, and that He will bring them to His everlasting kingdom, oh, then I do wonder, and I am astonished that such a blessing as this should ever have been given to me!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Each person is urged to prayerfully discern with the help of God what truth is found in this site and all following links:

LINKS    http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/

                http://www.sgat.org/

                http://www.strictbaptisthistory.org.uk/

                http://www.gospelstandard.org/

                http://englishchurchman.moonfruit.com/

                http://www.message4mormons.org/

                http://www.collierswoodchurch.moonfruit.com/  [not Baptist but Reformed Evangelical Anglican, i.e. belief in "doctrines of grace"]

                http://cgec.org.uk/ Evangelical Church in Covent Garden, London

                http://receptus.home.sprynet.com/whoswho.htm  AMERICAN PARTICULAR BAPTISTS

               Directory of churches are found in the sites below [not all are Baptists, some are evangelical Anglican]

                 http://www.grace.org.uk/

                http://www.fiec.org.uk/

                http://www.co-mission.org/

                http://www.continuingcofe.org/

For contact send e-mail to:

paul8george8 AT tiscali.co.uk                                    substitute AT  with "@"

I have tried to be as accurate as possible on this website. If I have inadvertently made a mistake, misrepresented any person or society, infringed copyright or have included a link whose owners wish me to remove please contact me at the above e-mail address.